Doesn't any of the religious advocates have anything to say that teaching religion at a young age is essentially programing a child to believe in something you cant prove and the child would be unlikely to believe in if left to there own devices till an older age. (where on the other hand if didn't teach you about how algebra, or the Spanish language worked at a young age then taught it to you when you were 18, you would probably believe me) Or that ID is by definition not scientific where evaluation is so it being taught in science class rooms is ridiculous even if the parents "want" it. Just because you want doesn't mean you can dictate what science is/is not.
I was bought up in a fundamentalist Christian home. I was only taught one thing, that God and the Bible were the answer to all questions. I was the one who spoke out in geography classes saying that the dates the teacher was saying about the ages of rocks might not be true. How could the teacher be so arrogant and ignorant of the real truth in the Bible?
15 years on I see there is no debate on these issues. Infinity, I was once where you are now. It looks like arrogance to be told you are ignorant, but if you did any amount of reading on the questions you asked you'd find that it might just be the truth. You gave loads of examples where you don't know of any scientific answer. If you REALLY cared about these questions, you'd find there are plenty of good ideas out there, many of which have been demonstrated to be as true as anything else we know.
Also, what do you think people in your position were saying decades ago? Things like "We don't even know why earthquakes happen..." This question has been solved, even if we have no way to predict them just yet. The big easy questions about life and the universe, the ones Christians were saying could only be explained by God, have mostly been wrapped up. Low hanging fruits and all that. Now scientists and theorists and mathematicians are working their way through harder and harder questions... some of which you brought up in your post.
How many questions must be given scientific answers for you to decide that the scientific method has value? And before you answer, Christians 200 years ago would say something like "Science can never explain the diversity and complexity of life on Earth..." so keep THAT in mind when you talk about such tiny and minor (yet hard) questions like deja vu.
Jay, way to go helping kill the idea of arrogance by incorrectly spelling evolution.
Anyone who cares, you can hear a 1 hour interview with myself on the Infidel Guy Show where I tell my story about becoming a non-Christian and my time working at GOD TV here (an mp3 file).
Just because I am not strictly factual doesn't mean that I entirely "lack reason."
Wow... just... wow... Yes, yes it does.
It's one thing to be creative. It's one thing to tell stories. But to take the next step and believe those stories makes you irrational. If it's arrogant to point this out to you, then so be it.
I do not think via processes. I think in more artistic and abstract terms. Think archetypes, literary devices, the "human experience" sort of thing. I'm guessing you never really enjoyed this kind of thing
Since when is art at odds with science?
Going on and on about "left-brained" thinking and artistry and abstraction, you seem to think that you've somehow rebutted something. You clearly don't even understand just what it is we're arguing, as almost everything you've said is entirely irrelevant. It's like arguing that the Romans conquered the Italian peninsula because apples are red and Mozart wasn't born yet.
irst of all, stop acting like science can prove everything. If it could, why are we still discovering things? Secondly, has science explained deja vu? Has it explained the purpose of dreams or the inner conscience? Have you ever had the feeling that you're being watched? Why do humans have goals? Why do we experience emotions such as awe and wonder, and how do we internally define it? Why does will have such an effect on others in some cases? Why does it seem like you never win unless you believe that you will? There is so much about the brain we still do not understand. Haven't there been cases of certain electrons moving in a synchronized pattern from miles away? What about all of the theoretical stuff about other dimensions? What if our human thoughts compose frequencies in those other dimensions that are unconsciously picked up by our brains? I still am settling for an "I don't know", but I have a feeling that this sort of discovery won't happen.
Ummm.. Science has discovered or explained nearly all of the above topics..... deja Vu, Dreams, sub conscience, peripheral vision, motivation, emotion, willpower, (a lot of what you are talking about is motivation), Quantum physics (currently being explored). It does help if your examples were not all mostly already explained.
You see, science can and has explained the patterns you see in communal humanity. Just because you are ignorant of that science does not mean all of us are.
First of all, stop acting like science can prove everything. If it could, why are we still discovering things? Secondly, has science explained deja vu? Has it explained the purpose of dreams or the inner conscience? Have you ever had the feeling that you're being watched? Why do humans have goals? Why do we experience emotions such as awe and wonder, and how do we internally define it? Why does will have such an effect on others in some cases? Why does it seem like you never win unless you believe that you will? There is so much about the brain we still do not understand. Haven't there been cases of certain electrons moving in a synchronized pattern from miles away? What about all of the theoretical stuff about other dimensions? What if our human thoughts compose frequencies in those other dimensions that are unconsciously picked up by our brains? I still am settling for an "I don't know", but I have a feeling that this sort of discovery won't happen.
You say you're settling for "I don't know", and yet you seem to have the desire to pull an explanation out of thin air... In fact, not only that, but to deny the exsitence of a logical explanation...
There is a huge difference between possible and probable. Learn it.
How can you assign a probability to something that may be possible? You cannot say "there is x% it is possible and x% it isn't. It either is or it isn't, we just don't know. I'mnotarguing for intelligent design or creationism. I'm not saying "I'm right." I'm saying "I don't think evolution is the end-all solution for how we evolved." Evidence? I have none except for my own interpretation of how evolution works. It doesn't seem optimal for this kind of evolution to be it.
Assigning a probability to something is a very difficult task. However, I can give you two key rules when it comes to saying how "probable" an explanation for something is:- 1) Simplicity (Occam's Razor) You might think this favours theism, but if you do, think again. The basic concept behind evolution is actually very simple if you think about it. However, if you actually *think* about the "God did it" explanations, you only make it more complicated; you raise more difficult questions such as "What is God", "Why did God do it", ... Occam's Razor may not always apply, but it is useful. 2) Predictive power If an explanation doesn't really tell you anything about what will happen in future, it is not particularly useful. If we just take fundamentalist religion, the underlying principles are "It is God's will" and "You cannot know the mind of God" They are at once claiming that there is an explanation, and that you simply can NOT know what it is.
As long as you insist that god is the answer, you are closing the door to knowledge
You're getting hung up on the word "god". How is my belief any more "god" than yours? I have something I can't explain, so I say I don't know. Maybe I don't believe in god. I believe insomething bigthat we haven't discovered, which by definition is unexplainable by science (since it hasn't been discovered). "God", unexplainable by science.
Others have commented on this already, but "unexplainable" is NOT the same thing as "has not yet been explained". We didn't have any clue about gravity before Newton, that didn't make it "unexplainable"... Also, the hang-up is not about "god". It's about the supernatural in general. If you claim that there is something outside of nature, then, in fact, by definition that makes it unexplainable by science.
intelligent rational people
Assuming you're right.
Intelligence is subjective. IQ tests are still objective. Understanding is subjective; think about inside jokes. Certain words mean different things to you because you have different experiences. A certain piece of art may appeal to me in a different way that it does to you. Maybe most people have the same appeal to the piece of art. That doesn't necessarily make my understanding of it wrong, nor does it make it "probable" that I am wrong. My way of understanding may just be different to the point that you can't understand it in the same way. You seem very scientific; you seem to understand things by way of specific processes, not unlike a computer. Correct me if I'm wrong. While I have always been above average in math, I do not think via processes. I think in more artistic and abstract terms. Think archetypes, literary devices, the "human experience" sort of thing. I'm guessing you never really enjoyed this kind of thing (correct me if I'm wrong). Just because I am not strictly factual doesn't mean that I entirely "lack reason." Just because I'm not the same doesn't mean I'm an idiot.
I'll take your stance. I'm sure that you, as a "rational and intelligent" person (which I believe you to be, or else I wouldn't waste my time righting my views in your eyes) understand the concept of left brain-right brain.The Spinning Dancer Testis a quick way to tell which one you are. I cannot see the dancer rotate counter-clockwise. I am "intuitive". I am "believing". I am "philosophical". It's just the way I am. Am I wrong for understanding science through abstract means? I believe in some sort of force that carries through "the human experience". Maybe that's the result of evolution, but it makes sense to me. I'm not going to argue about this with you any longer. I accept that your views make sense and contain specific evidence. I accept that you are "probably" right in your own perspective. I just want you to accept that I have my own way of understanding that reality.
While understanding is subjective, truth is not. To believe in a "force" influencing "the human experience" is, to me, disturbing; given that there is no evidence of such a thing at all.
Back on the original point, a science classroom is not a place for religion. If we're talking about philosophy, sure, bring it up. But not when we're talking about science.
On the arrogance issue, it doesn't invalidate the argument, but it damn sure makes it hard to listen to. When I'm frustrated explaining something to a student, I don't turn into an asshole. I find another way to reach that student. If your actual goal is educating people, you're doing it wrong. If your goal is to convince yourself that you're superior to others, way to go. Seriously, if being frustrated turns you into an asshole who constantly looks down on those who disagree with him, you need to re-evaluate priorities. Does it stress you that much that people you've never met and have no real personal contact with believe differently than you? Does it upset you so much that your personality changes? Or are you just a natural asshole?
I think Infinity raises a good point by accident. It is useless debating evolution if people don't have a grasp on what science is.
This touches on something I have been thinking about a lot recently. Not just about debating evolution, but debating in general. Debate is a tool we use to share thoughts, and also to collaborate and arrive at new ideas. By forcing others to defend all of their ideas, we can filter out which ideas are strong, and which are weak. Continue debate over time is an incredibly useful intellectual tool.
Lately, though, I've been thinking that debate is only useful among rational people. Trying to debate an irrational person is like trying to play basketball with a toddler. One day that toddler might be tall and strong enough to play basketball, but not now. Trying to get them to play it now is a complete waste of time. Instead you just need to play patty cake and ring around the rosy, and wait to see if they grow up. But as a person able to play basketball, hanging out with toddlers is perhaps not the best use of your time. Instead, you could just leave them their baby games and find a pick-up game of b-ball in the park.
Debate is much the same way. There are people who do not presently have the rationality or intellectual prowess to engage in useful debate. No matter how much you debate them, it will bear fruit no sooner than the toddler can make a layup. Perhaps then, the best course of action is to not waste your time. James Randi often complains of too many scientists staying in their ivory towers and not giving him support. Perhaps this is exactly why. They realize that even if they did make a public show of support for reason and logic, it would not change anyone's mind on the matter.
Ah darn, so that's why that user name looked 'familiar'. A truly awesome review that is. Now that I think about it, I wanted to check his/your podcast out.
I'll take your stance. I'm sure that you, as a "rational and intelligent" person (which I believe you to be, or else I wouldn't waste my time righting my views in your eyes) understand the concept of left brain-right brain. The Spinning Dancer Test is a quick way to tell which one you are. I cannot see the dancer rotate counter-clockwise.
At first I too thought, and heard, that that image was a test to see if you are left- or right-brained. However, since then I have bumped into it a few more times and bumped into more information about it then at first, when it was a 'hype'. It is actually a mere illusion. The direction the girl spins in depends on what you focus on first. If you still wish to cling to your claim that it allows one to determine if they are left- or right-brained, then please (try to as best as you can if you have to) explain this to me: I can see her turn either way, at will. So what am I?
Oh, this is going to be fun.
No, it was painful.
First of all, stop acting like science can prove everything. If it could, why are we still discovering things?
It can. But like Sail said, it takes time! People have gotten sick forever! Only after we had discovered that we could make glass out of sand, and then discovered that we were able to make things look larger than they are (smart people say magnify) if we cut the glass a certain way, and then after having invented all the tools needed to accurately cut glass to make microscopes we were able to discover bacteria and viruses, and only then we could start to create a proper explanation as to why people are getting sick. This took thousands of years. Only now is science picking up speed in it's discoveries and explanations compared to back then. You are suggesting that science INSTANTLY knows how something works and has to be done and thus has already discovered everything it can discover. Do you really think the primitive human being was able to tell his peers that the lightning they saw last night was an electric discharge? Do you really think that primitive human could tell them that said electrical discharge was a humongous amount of electrons moving to a different end of said lightning flash they saw? I hope you agree that the primitive human was not able to do that.
Secondly, has science explained deja vu?
See Sail's post.
Has it explained the purpose of dreams or the inner conscience?
Dreams: brain processing the information of the past day(s), inner conscience I don't know personally one, two, three.
Have you ever had the feeling that you're being watched?
No, that's a psychological disorder. Those who feel like they're being watched do that to themselves, they think they are being watched and the body reacts by creating an unpleasant feeling.
Why do humans have goals?
Basic instinct, wanting to surpass their peers as to be able to impress and fuck the girl down the street.
Why do we experience emotions such as awe and wonder, and how do we internally define it?
Can also be tied to basic instincts, seeing someone being better than you, seeing someone else increasing his chances of impressing and fucking that girl down the street.
Why does will have such an effect on others in some cases?
Sorry, I don't see what you're pointing at here, but someone else will probably understand it and be able to give a plausible explanation for it, if it's not bollocks.
Why does it seem like you never win unless you believe that you will?
See Sail's post, it's a psychological thing, you only remember that you lost by a lot (probably due to lack of skill) and not the small victories you had. The moment you believe that you will win (this is before having started playing) you only slightly increase your regular odds due to determination, because you want to impress and fuck that girl down the street. If you are already playing and then you believe you will win, then you probably already were on the winning side either way or close enough that the little push of determination, of wanting to impress and fuck that girl down the street, resulted in the odds tipping to your side. These explanations are of course taking into account that the played game is not one where chance is the deciding factor.
There is so much about the brain we still do not understand. Haven't there been cases of certain electrons moving in a synchronized pattern from miles away? What about all of the theoretical stuff about other dimensions? What if our human thoughts compose frequencies in those other dimensions that are unconsciously picked up by our brains?
Such a great circle we have walked. We're back at the point about science and discoveries taking time to be proven and documented. We haven't discovered the correct method to perfectly examine and test every facet of the brain yet. Doesn't mean we won't in forever.
I still am settling for an "I don't know", but I have a feeling that this sort of discovery won't happen.
Depending on the direction science will focus on most in the years to come and when you die, sure, maybe not in your lifetime. Maybe not in your children's lifetimes, maybe not even in their children's lifetimes, but it's very probable we will one day.
Note: All of these 'explanations' are merely probable, logical conclussions from random tidbits of knowledge I have gained through my education thus far. Any or all of them may be scientifically proven to be wrong (or correct) at some point in history. At least they're more probable than the explanation that an invisible something that is everywhere and loves everyone of us yet will send you to a place of supposed eternal torment, pain and agony, just because you preferred to fuck the little brother of that girl down the street instead of her, even though it made you that way.
If you take offense at the "impress and fuck that girl down the street" parts, you can replace them with "impress your god", that also works.
Also, I'm not going to bother to reply to more of that post. It's just too much.
Lately, though, I've been thinking that debate is only useful among rational people. Trying to debate an irrational person is like trying to play basketball with a toddler. One day that toddler might be tall and strong enough to play basketball, but not now. Trying to get them to play it now is a complete waste of time. Instead you just need to play patty cake and ring around the rosy, and wait to see if they grow up. But as a person able to play basketball, hanging out with toddlers is perhaps not the best use of your time. Instead, you could just leave them their baby games and find a pick-up game of b-ball in the park.
Debate is much the same way. There are people who do not presently have the rationality or intellectual prowess to engage in useful debate. No matter how much you debate them, it will bear fruit no sooner than the toddler can make a layup. Perhaps then, the best course of action is to not waste your time. James Randi often complains of too many scientists staying in their ivory towers and not giving him support. Perhaps this is exactly why. They realize that even if they did make a public show of support for reason and logic, it would not change anyone's mind on the matter.
This isn't necessarily a bad idea, but depending on how you define "rational", I'd think that it could easily turn into an excuse to only speak with those people who agree with you. What would be your stance on the, er... "irrationally rational" participating in debate? That is, those who share your conclusions, but came to them through poor reasoning, and who can't really defend your position?
Does it stress you that much that people you've never met and have no real personal contact with believe differently than you?
When these people are the majority, and we live in a democracy, it affects me greatly. When entire industries selling fake medicine exist, and people seek it out instead of real treatment, it affects me. When children aren't vaccinated by their crazy parents, it affects me. When anti-intellectualism is tolerated, nay, common, it affects me.
When I'm frustrated explaining something to a student, I don't turn into an asshole. I find another way to reach that student. If your actual goal is educating people, you're doing it wrong.
Imagine if more than half of your students, every year, for as long as you had taught, had never expressed even a glimmer of understanding. Imagine if, upon explaining that the sky was blue, they did not believe and refused to look at the sky. Imagine if, upon forcing their gaze upward, they exclaimed that this blue was a trick, that the true color was only over the horizon. Imagine if, upon taking them over the horizon, they always claimed that the true color was "just over the horizon."
How do you teach someone who refuses to listen, can not understand, and will not learn, and yet is convinced that they're right?
When these people are the majority, and we live in a democracy, it affects me greatly. When entire industries selling fake medicine exist, and people seek it out instead of real treatment, it affects me. When children aren't vaccinated by their crazy parents, it affects me. When anti-intellectualism is tolerated, nay, common, it affects me.
Why does it effect you? How does it effect you? You seem to suggest that holding a minority opinion in a democracy fits into this somehow, how so? Why is your current solution to your dillema the superior one?
Waxing poetic is nice, but to further discussion, elaboration on particular points is needed.
Why does it effect you? How does it effect you? You seem to suggest that holding a minority opinion in a democracy fits into this somehow, how so? Why is your current solution to your dillema the superior one?
Whether or not his solution is the best, it's better than denying that there is a dilemma at all.
When these people are the majority, and we live in a democracy, it affects me greatly. When entire industries selling fake medicine exist, and people seek it out instead of real treatment, it affects me. When children aren't vaccinated by their crazy parents, it affects me. When anti-intellectualism is tolerated, nay, common, it affects me.
Ok, first, we don't live in a democracy. We live in a republic. It's the reason why fads do not (usually) control public policy. The second and third point...so, it's all because you're a kind and loving person? And, lastly, I think you are painting extremes here. A person is perfectly capable of thinking rationally about science and believing in God. Science and religion are not polar opposites. I agree with you about faith healing and the people who abuse their children by refusing a doctor's care. It is immoral in the greatest sense. If someone dies because they refused medical attention for themselves, well, good riddance. But if someone does it to another person, especially a child, they should be arrested for murder and given the harshest punishment possible.
How do you teach someone who refuses to listen, can not understand, and will not learn, and yet is convinced that they're right?
If you're a good teacher, you keep going. If you're a bad teacher, you turn into a raging asshole and use phrases like "Free Thinkers" to describe people who think alike. And, do all atheists consider themselves to be teachers of the ignorant? Is that why they get so preachy? I mean, I honestly don't care if I believe the same thing as anyone else. You have your beliefs (or lack thereof) and I've got mine. So what?
I guess I'm just looking for acknowledgment that there is a scale here. You can't paint people with such a broad brush. Just because someone is religious does not mean that they are not rational in other aspects of their life. You're right that religion is irrational. Ding! But that does not automatically make one anti-intellectual in all aspects.
A person is perfectly capable of thinking rationally about science and believing in God.
I disagree. Someone who believes in the christian god is in no way a rational person. They might end up doing some intelligent things in other arenas, but as a person they are deeply flawed.
A person is perfectly capable of thinking rationally about science and believing in God.
I disagree. Someone who believes in the christian god is in no way a rational person. They might end up doing some intelligent things in other arenas, but as a person they are deeply flawed.
I think the problem is that they compartmentalize their lives. They keep the science in the lab and the religion in their social life. They don't mix the two because of the cognitive dissonance that would arise.
do all atheists consider themselves to be teachers of the ignorant? Is that why they get so preachy? I mean, I honestly don't care if I believe the same thing as anyone else. You have your beliefs (or lack thereof) and I've got mine. So what?
These believers are the reason gays can't yet be married legally, why I can't buy liquor on a Sunday morning, why my radio and television are censored to high hell, why my schools must battle with idiotic beliefs and those who would inflict them upon children, why sexual education isn't just a given, why tax dollars are wasted subsidizing churches, and so on and so on.
A scientologist, a christian, a homeopath, a flat-Earther, a muslim, a wiccan, a chiropractor, a mormon: they're all equally unlikely to be correct and have just as much evidence for their beliefs as eachother. Why should their beliefs be respected any more or less than the belief in a giant, flying spaghetti monster?
When these people are the majority, and we live in a democracy, it affects me greatly. When entire industries selling fake medicine exist, and people seek it out instead of real treatment, it affects me. When children aren't vaccinated by their crazy parents, it affects me. When anti-intellectualism is tolerated, nay, common, it affects me.
Ok, first, we don't live in a democracy. We live in a republic.
The two are not mutually exclusive, and in fact for the most part are intertwined...
It's the reason why fads do not (usually) control public policy.
I guess you're referring specifically to direct democracy. That is not the only form of democracy...
The second and third point...so, it's all because you're a kind and loving person? And, lastly, I think you are painting extremes here. A person is perfectly capable of thinking rationally about science and believing in God.
Yes, but they can't think rationally about everything and still believe in God.
Science and religion are not polar opposites.
1) Natural vs supernatural 2) The scientific method (evidence-based reasoning) vs faith Those are polar opposites, and these issues are at the core of science and religion, are they not?
How do you teach someone who refuses to listen, can not understand, and will not learn, and yet is convinced that they're right?
If you're a good teacher, you keep going. If you're a bad teacher, you turn into a raging asshole and use phrases like "Free Thinkers" to describe people who think alike. And, do all atheists consider themselves to be teachers of the ignorant? Is that why they get so preachy? I mean, I honestly don't care if I believe the same thing as anyone else. You have your beliefs (or lack thereof) and I've got mine. So what?
Well, as long as your beliefs aren't harmful, to yourself or to society, for the most part we are willing not to care. However, anyone who attempts to spread such beliefs, or might make extremely poor decisions under the influence of such beliefs, is worth attention. Also, here's an interesting point - any religion with a concept of "hell" leaves its believers with two choices:- 1) To attempt to save their fellow individuals by bringing them into the faith 2) To throw empathy to the dogs and be satisfied that so many people around you are screwed for all eternity People in both categories are dangerous to society...
While we can't be sure if a religious person is likely to negatively impact on society, it's safest to assume that they may, and see what can be done about it.
I guess I'm just looking for acknowledgment that there is a scale here. You can't paint people with such a broad brush. Just because someone is religious does not mean that they are not rational in other aspects of their life. You're right that religion is irrational. Ding! But that does not automatically make one anti-intellectual in all aspects.
How can someone who is willingly irrational on one topic decide on which topics they should be rational and on which ones they should be irrational? Irrationally, I should think. The occasional bit of irrationality is human. However, willingly embracing this irrationality in at least one aspect of your life casts doubt on your ability to manage other aspects. Also, at least in the case of major religions, they often enforce a rather strict way of acting and thinking on you, so to say that this is just "an aspect" of life is something of an understatement.
I think the problem is that they compartmentalize their lives. They keep the science in the lab and the religion in their social life. They don't mix the two because of the cognitive dissonance that would arise.
I think the problem is that they compartmentalize their lives. They keep the science in the lab and the religion in their social life. They don't mix the two because of the cognitive dissonance that would arise.
Kind of like preachers who molest little boys?
What do you mean? The fact that they separate their actions from what their religion teaches you, yeah I suppose it's similar.
Comments
15 years on I see there is no debate on these issues. Infinity, I was once where you are now. It looks like arrogance to be told you are ignorant, but if you did any amount of reading on the questions you asked you'd find that it might just be the truth. You gave loads of examples where you don't know of any scientific answer. If you REALLY cared about these questions, you'd find there are plenty of good ideas out there, many of which have been demonstrated to be as true as anything else we know.
Also, what do you think people in your position were saying decades ago? Things like "We don't even know why earthquakes happen..." This question has been solved, even if we have no way to predict them just yet. The big easy questions about life and the universe, the ones Christians were saying could only be explained by God, have mostly been wrapped up. Low hanging fruits and all that. Now scientists and theorists and mathematicians are working their way through harder and harder questions... some of which you brought up in your post.
How many questions must be given scientific answers for you to decide that the scientific method has value? And before you answer, Christians 200 years ago would say something like "Science can never explain the diversity and complexity of life on Earth..." so keep THAT in mind when you talk about such tiny and minor (yet hard) questions like deja vu.
Jay, way to go helping kill the idea of arrogance by incorrectly spelling evolution.
Anyone who cares, you can hear a 1 hour interview with myself on the Infidel Guy Show where I tell my story about becoming a non-Christian and my time working at GOD TV here (an mp3 file).
Yes, yes it does.
It's one thing to be creative. It's one thing to tell stories. But to take the next step and believe those stories makes you irrational. If it's arrogant to point this out to you, then so be it. Since when is art at odds with science?
Going on and on about "left-brained" thinking and artistry and abstraction, you seem to think that you've somehow rebutted something. You clearly don't even understand just what it is we're arguing, as almost everything you've said is entirely irrelevant. It's like arguing that the Romans conquered the Italian peninsula because apples are red and Mozart wasn't born yet.
1) Simplicity (Occam's Razor)
You might think this favours theism, but if you do, think again. The basic concept behind evolution is actually very simple if you think about it. However, if you actually *think* about the "God did it" explanations, you only make it more complicated; you raise more difficult questions such as "What is God", "Why did God do it", ...
Occam's Razor may not always apply, but it is useful.
2) Predictive power
If an explanation doesn't really tell you anything about what will happen in future, it is not particularly useful.
If we just take fundamentalist religion, the underlying principles are "It is God's will" and "You cannot know the mind of God"
They are at once claiming that there is an explanation, and that you simply can NOT know what it is. Others have commented on this already, but "unexplainable" is NOT the same thing as "has not yet been explained". We didn't have any clue about gravity before Newton, that didn't make it "unexplainable"...
Also, the hang-up is not about "god". It's about the supernatural in general. If you claim that there is something outside of nature, then, in fact, by definition that makes it unexplainable by science. While understanding is subjective, truth is not.
To believe in a "force" influencing "the human experience" is, to me, disturbing; given that there is no evidence of such a thing at all.
On the arrogance issue, it doesn't invalidate the argument, but it damn sure makes it hard to listen to. When I'm frustrated explaining something to a student, I don't turn into an asshole. I find another way to reach that student. If your actual goal is educating people, you're doing it wrong. If your goal is to convince yourself that you're superior to others, way to go. Seriously, if being frustrated turns you into an asshole who constantly looks down on those who disagree with him, you need to re-evaluate priorities. Does it stress you that much that people you've never met and have no real personal contact with believe differently than you? Does it upset you so much that your personality changes? Or are you just a natural asshole?
Lately, though, I've been thinking that debate is only useful among rational people. Trying to debate an irrational person is like trying to play basketball with a toddler. One day that toddler might be tall and strong enough to play basketball, but not now. Trying to get them to play it now is a complete waste of time. Instead you just need to play patty cake and ring around the rosy, and wait to see if they grow up. But as a person able to play basketball, hanging out with toddlers is perhaps not the best use of your time. Instead, you could just leave them their baby games and find a pick-up game of b-ball in the park.
Debate is much the same way. There are people who do not presently have the rationality or intellectual prowess to engage in useful debate. No matter how much you debate them, it will bear fruit no sooner than the toddler can make a layup. Perhaps then, the best course of action is to not waste your time. James Randi often complains of too many scientists staying in their ivory towers and not giving him support. Perhaps this is exactly why. They realize that even if they did make a public show of support for reason and logic, it would not change anyone's mind on the matter.
Note: All of these 'explanations' are merely probable, logical conclussions from random tidbits of knowledge I have gained through my education thus far. Any or all of them may be scientifically proven to be wrong (or correct) at some point in history. At least they're more probable than the explanation that an invisible something that is everywhere and loves everyone of us yet will send you to a place of supposed eternal torment, pain and agony, just because you preferred to fuck the little brother of that girl down the street instead of her, even though it made you that way.
If you take offense at the "impress and fuck that girl down the street" parts, you can replace them with "impress your god", that also works.
Also, I'm not going to bother to reply to more of that post. It's just too much.
How do you teach someone who refuses to listen, can not understand, and will not learn, and yet is convinced that they're right?
Why does it effect you? How does it effect you? You seem to suggest that holding a minority opinion in a democracy fits into this somehow, how so? Why is your current solution to your dillema the superior one?
Waxing poetic is nice, but to further discussion, elaboration on particular points is needed.
I guess I'm just looking for acknowledgment that there is a scale here. You can't paint people with such a broad brush. Just because someone is religious does not mean that they are not rational in other aspects of their life. You're right that religion is irrational. Ding! But that does not automatically make one anti-intellectual in all aspects.
A scientologist, a christian, a homeopath, a flat-Earther, a muslim, a wiccan, a chiropractor, a mormon: they're all equally unlikely to be correct and have just as much evidence for their beliefs as eachother. Why should their beliefs be respected any more or less than the belief in a giant, flying spaghetti monster?
2) The scientific method (evidence-based reasoning) vs faith
Those are polar opposites, and these issues are at the core of science and religion, are they not? Well, as long as your beliefs aren't harmful, to yourself or to society, for the most part we are willing not to care.
However, anyone who attempts to spread such beliefs, or might make extremely poor decisions under the influence of such beliefs, is worth attention.
Also, here's an interesting point - any religion with a concept of "hell" leaves its believers with two choices:-
1) To attempt to save their fellow individuals by bringing them into the faith
2) To throw empathy to the dogs and be satisfied that so many people around you are screwed for all eternity
People in both categories are dangerous to society...
While we can't be sure if a religious person is likely to negatively impact on society, it's safest to assume that they may, and see what can be done about it. How can someone who is willingly irrational on one topic decide on which topics they should be rational and on which ones they should be irrational?
Irrationally, I should think.
The occasional bit of irrationality is human. However, willingly embracing this irrationality in at least one aspect of your life casts doubt on your ability to manage other aspects. Also, at least in the case of major religions, they often enforce a rather strict way of acting and thinking on you, so to say that this is just "an aspect" of life is something of an understatement.